On 12/03/2015 09:29 am, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Anyways protection against prevasive monitoring is the important thing here, the limited protection against active attacks is secondary objective.
That is my view. My sense is that TCPinc goes forward in v0 with only passive capabilities, and is easily attacked.
In v1, we might do better. But I don't get the feeling that we/the group knows enough to lay down the solution without really trying it.
So better off to go for the low goal and get that right. Is my view. iang _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
